I think adding about 2 days/week of weight training (+ running) could help make one leaner (maybe faster), maybe not weigh less since muscle weighs more. Yet, muscle and brown fat are the calorie burning tissue.

It weighs the same. A pound is a pound. no matter the substance.

I actually don't know what people intent/point is when they say muscle weighs more, obviously they are meaning it is more dense but what is the significance of that. Why would muscle being more dense affect whether or not one puts weight on/loses/or maintains weight? If people lost weight and stayed the same size then I would get it, but when most people lose weight they tend to look smaller, which could mean weight loss even with "more dense" muscle.

They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."

I think people say muscle weighs more then fat, because it sounds good. When you have been working out like a maniac lifting weights and (you either have been or want to believe that you have been) adding muscle but you stay the same weight you feel like you should have an excuse for the numbers not dropping on the scale.

I haven't lost much weight in the past month (2 lbs) but I definitely look better and feel better in my clothes due to the muscle tone that I have gained from various workout routines.

Your Garmin is wrong, as is his It's using a simple formula, so they'll never be all that perfect. But, calories burned is really mainly about body weight and distance, so they are pretty fair estimates as long as you accept them as estimates.

Since it's new to you -- have you plugged in all your personal info into the profile on your Garmint? (age/sex/ age/weight) The estimator here on RA guestimates 1140 calories for you.

I've done my best to live the right way. I get up every morning and go to work each day. (for now)

I read a similar article on Kenyans and their diet. They eat after each run, typically doing 2-3 runs a day. Of course they only weigh 130 or less. So the 3000 kcal is plenty.

Based on 200# and the mileage you do, I would think you are consuming 5500 to 6000 kcal a day on average. Saving 500 kcal a day would drop weight. I think larger meals after runs are fine, but larger meals the day before runs is not ideal. In the initial research on carb loading, the most efficient way was to starve oneself, and then eat lots of carbs. I think this is what Eddy just did. More recently, studies showed the starvation state wasn't needed, but also the large meals were not needed.

Just like the Kenyans, the best time to build up muscle glycogen is right after a high quality run. The amount consumed should depend on the timing and quality of the next workout.

As far as pounds, fat and muscle, all I can say is that the extra pounds of fat I have are not doing much for me. Gladly switch a pound of muscle for a pound of fat. It won't jiggle as much, and will make my basal metabolic rate higher!

I actually don't know what people intent/point is when they say muscle weighs more, obviously they are meaning it is more dense but what is the significance of that. Why would muscle being more dense affect whether or not one puts weight on/loses/or maintains weight? If people lost weight and stayed the same size then I would get it, but when most people lose weight they tend to look smaller, which could mean weight loss even with "more dense" muscle.

What people mean is that calorie per calorie muscle weighs a lot more. A pound of fat stores 3,500 calories, but a pound of muscle, more like ~600. Therefore, the reasoning goes, you can be on a caloric deficit, yet actually gaining weight, if you are building muscle.

Say I am on a 500 cal/day deficit. I should lose a pound of fat per week, right? Well, it is energetically possible that instead I lose two pounds of fat, and build six pounds of muscle, gaining four pounds! Of course, nobody actually gains six pounds of muscle in a week, but you see the principle.

Your Garmin is wrong, as is his It's using a simple formula, so they'll never be all that perfect. But, calories burned is really mainly about body weight and distance, so they are pretty fair estimates as long as you accept them as estimates.

Since it's new to you -- have you plugged in all your personal info into the profile on your Garmint? (age/sex/ age/weight) The estimator here on RA guestimates 1140 calories for you.

Yeah I know it's an estimate. I like 1140 MUCH better. That's like an extra beer!!

What people mean is that calorie per calorie muscle weighs a lot more. A pound of fat stores 3,500 calories, but a pound of muscle, more like ~600. Therefore, the reasoning goes, you can be on a caloric deficit, yet actually gaining weight, if you are building muscle.

Say I am on a 500 cal/day deficit. I should lose a pound of fat per week, right? Well, it is energetically possible that instead I lose two pounds of fat, and build six pounds of muscle, gaining four pounds! Of course, nobody actually gains six pounds of muscle in a week, but you see the principle.

Woah, I've never actually heard/read/seen this explanation before. That actually surprises me since I used to be a little bit into strength training/lifting stuff and did a reasonable amount of reading about nutrition, diet, food timings, etc.

Interesting stuff to say the least.

They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."